Vista - Which Internet Security Suite to get included with new computer?

Also, In case you are not aware, I am posting from a mirror site. thus the Vistax64 stuff- any images, or links to articles will not show up, but will only show a URL to you.

Are you sure of EastCoast Lab? or was it West Coast Lab....

and what particular product you've done test on personally? and when
identifying flaws of product be particular with specifics. People read such
for reference maybe it would help the community better decide more if you
give link and details.

because I did check out the report and see that not all Trend Micro product
is as what you say referencing the actual testing company reports so maybe
you may need to be specific

http://us.trendmicro.com/us/products...scadia-review/



"rive0108" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:b680bac2b39ddbef4012bde842deb264@xxxxxx-gateway.com...

Westcoast. Sorry bout that-typo.

I dont "test" av apps myself, I leave that to certified Labs and professionals in the industry. Amature tests are of no value thats the problem.

VB100 [Trend Micro Vendor Results]
Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Trend Micro

AV-Comparatives
Retrospective/Heuristic testing [May 2009]
http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report22.pdf
On-Demand Testing [Feb 2009]
http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report21.pdf


Computer magazines and ezine Antivirus Testing and Recommendations (i.e., Editor's Pick Awards)

by Andrew J. Lee
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.avien.net

It is indisputable that any magazine can test and compare the usability, the interface, the update method, the system performance impact, the "user friendliness" and the features of respective products, and, on that basis, many magazines have conducted good and fair reviews of the anti-virus software included.

However, on the basis of their stated methodology for testing the virus detection functionality of the scanners, they often have not. The idea that a magazine will be able to test any virus scanner with their own "quarantined" virus collection is at best foolish and at worst dangerous.

Let me put it simply. When it comes to Scanner testing such magazines usually do not know what they are doing. This is proved by telling us how their test was conducted. It is simply wrong to assume that they can test a scanner just by seeing if it detects the viruses that they have. If it detects them they have proved nothing, except that there are some files they suspect of being viruses that it detects, you cannot extrapolate any further conclusion. If it does not detect, they have no way of telling why.

This is because they don't know whether their samples are viable* either fully or in part, nor whether the samples they have are mutations or variants (i.e. someone or something has made changes to it). The major criticisms that I have of such methodologies are these:

1. They do not define and publish the sample set used - listing by family, variant and type.
2. They have not tested the ability to replicate, (the definition of a virus), of each member of that sample set.
3. They do not publish the methodology of testing, which must be consistent for each product, i.e. how they set it up, were the files tested against in their natural state (as they would appear in the wild) etc.
4. They do not state whether they have distinguished viruses from Trojans or other non viral malware.
5. They often state disinfection or healing as a benefit, when it is far from agreed that it is of any benefit.
6. They often do not state the update or engine level of each product, nor the platforms on which they tested.

Therefore such tests have proved nothing, and are of little value in making a purchasing judgement.


For reliable results check the tests done by respected independent bodies in the field, you will often see that their testing contradicts such arbitrary magazine test results. See these links for some real tests :

http://www.av-test.org/index.php3?lang=en
http://www.virusbtn.com/100
http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/
ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2001-07/0xecsum.txt
http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/virus/
http://www.check-mark.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certifiedproducts.shtml

Real world anti-virus scanner testing is carried out using thousands of verified viruses under strictly controlled conditions. They are also carried out, at least the recognized tests, by experts in the field, who understand not only the implications of the results, but who are able to correctly interpret the results. Any tests a computer magazine have conducted in the manner described earlier are immediately invalidated by the non scientific method.

*Viable here means able to replicate and infect other files.


Read more...
Source: http://www.claymania.com/scannertest.html


Heuristic and On-Demand

Hueristic testing is when they use old signature definitions for malware (i.e., 6 month old virus signatures), and then introduce "new" malware, and the program Instead of looking for specific signatures, Is forced to use heuristic scanning looking for certain instructions or commands within a program that are not found in typical application programs. As a result, a heuristic engine is able to detect potentially malicious functionality in new, previously unexamined software such as the replication mechanism of a virus, the distribution routine of a worm or the payload of a trojan.

Heuristic detection capabilities-
Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take screenshots nowadays too-i.e, Spy Lantern Keylogger ), that captures your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria), or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs, etc.


Regarding the High detection, and high false Alarms of AV's
“To better evaluate the quality of the detection capabilities, the false alarm rate has to be taken into account too. A false alarm (or false positive) is when an antivirus product flags an innocent file to be infected when it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much trouble [just] like a real infection.”
Most will assume it is a legit virus, worm, trojan and let the antivirus app "clean" or remove it. This can in itself cause data/Windows/Program corruption, thus causing the same damage as if it were a real malware infection. Leading to Windows/Program Instability or crashes and damaged/corrupted data that becomes useless.


Source:Whats the Best Antivirus/ Security Suite??

-The westcoast lab review that you referenced is for Spam. Not malware. Perhaps we have a different view on the purpose of an antivirus Internet security app.
http://us.trendmicro.com/imperia/md/...t_090130us.pdf

Here is the full WestCoast Lab Trend Micro Test report against Symantec and Mcafee:
http://westcoastlabs.com/downloads/p...ing_Report.pdf

Trend Micro VB100 test results (image):
36 ENTRIES, 11 FAILURES
Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Trend Micro

Av-test.org Labs Trend Micro Internet security test results:
AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software
Virus Bulletin : News - AV-Test release latest results

Malware on Demand:
91%

Adware/Spyware On demand:
88%

As for me these are the particular products I use:
UAC and Hardware DEP enabled
Fully configured outbound Vista Firewall
SPI Hardware firewall
NOD32 4 x64
Windows Defender (set to notify for software not yet classifed for risks, and changes made to the system by software permitted to run)

here's my tuppence worth, i have had norton security in the past and would Not recommend it to anyone, takes over the pc, far too bulky and eats the memory, not very good at the job its renowned for either in my opinion.

have used mcafee firewall in the past and was not impressed with that either.

the general opinion on most forums is that nod32 and kapersky are two of the best anti-virus out there, so may be a good idea to stick with your kapersky, though i've not used it myself.
i agree that those test-labs are a good indication of what software is good to use and its there where i first had good reports for ''Avira'', and have used it ever since.

i disagree that security suites are a bad idea, having tried various different firewalls and anti-virus software over the years, a few months back i decided i liked Avira anti-virus so much i would try the security suite, and i am very pleased with it, not too bulky, doesn't use up too much computer recourses, just very quietly goes about its job which i think its very good at. judging by those test-labs no one product will ever give you 100% protection, but i believe this is about as close at you can get.

Anti virus for Linux, Windows and more with firewall, antispam, recovery security - Avira AntiVir (a free anti-virus is available here)

other software i use=
webroot spy sweeper
Tune-up utilities 2009
TUT (the ultimate troubleshooter)
windows defender.

for added security i would suggest always using ''Firefox'' as your browser and getting the free add-ons ''no-script'' ''ad-aware'' and ''keyscrambler'' which install within it.

i am a heavy user, most days spending hours surfing, so far (touch wood) using the software listed has kept me safe.

magoo.

Aaron wrote:Well, after a few months of running Trend Micro I return here hanging my
head in shame (well, sort of).

Twice I have had it stall during the Installation phase of the update
process. It downloads the new definitions, then sits merrily running the
'installing updates' without end.

Twice now I have gone through email consultations, and got it to install
updates by using their recommended downloads and registry tweaks. At the
beginning of my second incident I did let them know that if I have any
other troubles I would kiss TM bye bye and use a product from a
different manufacturer.

The only silver lining, if one can call it that, is that they were very
responsive to my complaints, and even had me download HijackThis and
submit its report for analysis. But the black cloud of loss of
protection outweighs the good. If your car keeps breaking down it does
not matter if the best mechanic it the world can put it right, when it
should not have gone wrong in the first place.

BTW, at the beginning of the year Norton 2009 was highly rated by, I
believe, PCWorld (among other mags) but has been supplanted by G-Data in
their May reviews. Maximum PC likes Norton 2009, too.

--

I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
That's what everybody calls me.

"Aaron" <kem_tek@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uqrVNcD%23JHA.4560@xxxxxxI hear Norton has made improvements upon the oft mentioned compliant of
"bogging down" of the system. I suggest giving it a try, but can't
recommend it from a users point of view as I haven't used Norton since
NAV5.0.

....and I don't like suites.
If you didn't have your mind set on having a suite, you could tailor
your security related programs to your specific needs. What kind of use
or abuse do you put or subject your computer to? Adequate security can
be had for free in some cases, and in other cases a suite is exactly
what is needed (one point of contact for all aspects) - and as you hit
on below *support* is (or should be) the true value of your expense. If
support is nonexistant it can make the program totally useless.
Kaspersky is high on my list also, but I've never used it.
Did you use the protected administrator account *and* run as
administrator when you ran the installation executable? I'm not sure it
is necessary, but I do it now just because I suspect Vista of "silent
failure" in some aspects when installing programs.
Support isn't everything - the program has to work too. \
....then again, many people buy cars based on how well they crash.
My opinion?
Those choices?

1 Kaspersky
2 Norton
3 McAfee
4 Trend Micro

Myself - I am using AntiVir on XP Pro laptop (came with Norton) and
Avast! on Vista Home Premium laptop (came with McAfee). I haven't had to
test their free version support channels yet.